Dokploy MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation. The description only confirms it's a POST request, which aligns with the mutable nature. However, it doesn't add important context like what happens when the server IP is updated (does it affect running services? require restart?), authentication requirements, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - arguably too concise. It's structured with a title-like format and parameter listing, but lacks complete sentences explaining functionality. While not verbose, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative. The parameter listing is helpful but the overall description feels incomplete rather than optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a mutation tool (updating server IP) with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what side effects occur, error conditions, or how this interacts with the broader system. With annotations covering basic safety but no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's impact and results. The sibling tools show this is part of a complex settings management system, but the description doesn't situate it within that context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 required parameter, the description provides minimal parameter semantics. It lists 'serverIp (string, required)' but doesn't explain what format the IP should be (IPv4, IPv6), whether it's a validation pattern, what this IP represents (public IP, internal IP, management IP), or provide examples. The schema only indicates it's a string type, so the description adds little value beyond repeating the parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool name and HTTP method ('settings.updateServerIp (POST)') but is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'updateServerIp' actually does in terms of functionality or what resource is being modified. While it mentions 'settings', it doesn't clarify if this updates global settings, server settings, or something else.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the dokploy_settings_* namespace (like dokploy_settings_updateServer, dokploy_settings_getIp, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific server IP update tool should be used versus other server-related settings tools. No prerequisites, dependencies, or context is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.